Canadian pilots no longer have to fly real aircraft to keep valid licences
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
It was an incredible experience to build and operate; I never did stick around for the final install, which was going to mount the cockpit onto a platform capable of rotating and lifting in a variety of crazy ways.
I work in VR now and honestly nothing comes close to the experience we built.
This is an interesting statement, because in all the wide sphere of points where VR can be applied, it seems to me that the only place of any 'validity' or .. true social value .. (i.e. not gaming/entertainment) .. is in the realm of training for high-performance/life-critical operator scenarios.
Which is not to say that these things can/can not be gamified - but perhaps that the end result of such a stringent effort by society to apply VR technology to training and simulation of otherwise-life-threatening roles/responsibilities/duties is that it all becomes a bit of a game.
What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and "built serious simulator system", in your opinion?
To answer your question, the difference is in fidelity. HMDs are slow, low resolution, heavy and uncomfortable compared to a properly built cave.
We're already seeing socially important applications outside of training. VR is being used as part of treatment for PTSD and phobia; it can provide a very believable experience of a traumatic stimulus in a safe environment. VR may prove to be a powerful tool for psychotherapists.
More broadly, I think we have underestimated the psychological significance of presence. Users respond to convincing VR experiences in a totally different way to other media. This difference seems to be relatively durable and does not fully diminish when the novelty wears off. Pilots in simulators experience real physiological stress, even when they are experienced simulator users.
How would the world change if most of us got our news through VR - if we felt that we were stood in Mosul or Aleppo, flinching at every bang, reflexively crouching down for safety?
>What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and "built serious simulator system", in your opinion?
There's a vast difference between a $2000 consumer system and a $2,000,000 simulator. A headset can't approach the fidelity of a real cockpit with real controls and instruments, mounted on a huge hydraulic motion rig. VR technology is constantly advancing, but there will always be a gap between an expensive single-purpose system and a cheap general-purpose system.
1) A totally unchallenging formality that will satisfy the requirements for keeping your license.
2) Training for police to use a car as tactically while being shot at.
There didn't seem to be any middle ground for people who just felt like they'd like to reduce their chances of killing a cyclist.
I wonder if it would profitable to build an arcade machine and charge people to play a more immersive version of Crazy Taxi, GTA, or some prohibition bootlegger simulator.
Fundamentally, I think most drivers view driving as just a thing they do, and give no thought to the possibility of improving. So having classes or simulators isn't going to help, because they wouldn't take advantage of them.
...unless it becomes a requirement for a license.
The thing is that it's not so much that most people don't know how they could drive more defensively/safer/etc., it's that they're in a hurry, or they're texting, or otherwise aren't carefully monitoring their surroundings.
Yes, there are some people driving who probably shouldn't be on the road. But until such times as automation arrives, you'll find exactly zero support for that idea outside the young and fit of Silicon Valley.
I'd also add that fatalities are far more often caused by reckless young drivers than by the not so fit and young whose reflexes or eyesight may not be what they once were.
Basic driver's education in the state I grew up in was state subsidized and offered through the community college so it was quite inexpensive. On the flipside, it was a terrible course, with minimal actual driving time and a terrible case of design for the lowest common denominator. I wonder if more advanced driving courses could be offered the same way, but perhaps they'd fall to the same problems.
You might look at motorcycling as a positive example. While many states require the Motorcycle Safety Foundation basic course for a motorcycle endorsement, MSF also publishes an advanced course and various skill courses that seem to be relatively popular amongst motorcyclists. MSF courses are developed by the Foundation and all the materials are licensed (I would assume at nominal cost) to various local organizations that actually teach them, in my area affiliated also with the community college.
Therefore, if we're going to require advanced multi-day driving schools and/or annual physical driving exams (or whatever), you're going to have to explain how that works in a world where many people can barely afford to keep their clunker running and are unemployed if they can't drive.
Driving may not be a "right" (whatever that means exactly as we place limits on lots of rights), but I wouldn't want to be the politician who decides to take that "privilege" away from 20% of the population because they missed their annual refresher course or recertification exam.
I think a lot of people would benefit from being able to practice their parking in VR rather than with a >£25/h driving instructor.
> United States and European Union, which still compel pilots to meet stringent standards to keep their licences valid, including a requirement to actually fly a plane.
Not true, at least not in the US. According to 14 CFR 61.56 (i) "A flight simulator or flight training device may be used to meet the flight review requirements of this section"
> There is a whole host of skills you don’t exercise in a simulator
True, but the opposite is also true. I can think of number of scenarios that can be practiced in a sim but cannot be safely or legally practiced in aircraft. Example of such scenario: engine failure in instrument meteorological conditions.
> If you had a heart issue, would you go and see a heart surgeon that hadn’t operated in five years
I wonder if Mr. McConnell is aware that every single line pilot who files B787 or A380 today did all their training for that airframe and passed the rating test in a flight simulator.
The reality is all airline pilots train in flight sims these day. There is no practical way of doing that in actual aircraft. If one can do all their training and pass the license test in a sim why can't they do periodic flight review in a sim?
The problem is relying on automation instead of real piloting skills
I trust much more a pilot practicing manual flying in a simulator than doing real flying in "Children of Magenta" mode
[1] http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magent...
I expect we'll hear a lot more on this topic. Assuming you're at all skeptical about the timeframe for full automobile driving automation, it seems a certainty that we'll have a (significant) period when stuff works most of the time--until it doesn't. And, given that lots of people drive distracted today, what's it going to look like when the car can drive down the highway most of the time on its own?
Look at the space program, for example. Extremes of forces and very short windows for decision-making have moved spaceflight in the direction of automation for most mission critical moments. The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators, so I am not sure where the difference lies in your differentiation between the two.
I can see a point where doing everything by software rather than human is safer and makes the most sense (see the direction Tesla is taking us), and at that point there will be no issue. But that is not the case now.
> The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators
The problem is when the data sources fail, like in AF447.
Or when you have people crashing an airplane in perfect weather, like Asiana Airlines 214 in San Francisco
Yes, automation makes things easier, but they fail eventually. And when it fails you have to fly it manually (or with a lower level of automation). But some modern pilots are incapable of doing that.
What I am saying is that simulation time alone is not good enough. Nor is flying-only time. Both are needed, and for different reasons. Sure, time spent in automation mode in the air is not incredibly useful. But it is reality, and enduring that, only to have to take manual control in a panic after 8 hours of boredom is something I don't see simulators re-reproducing very well any time soon.
Level of automation you're using has nothing to do with flying on a simulator or an actual plane.
You can fly in a real aircraft for hours doing nothing but twisting autopilot knobs. OTOH you can practice basic airmanship skills in a sim.
EDIT: sorry, I realized that you were basically saying the same thing.
However, you can't get away from actually flying a plane. There's little things you don't practice in the simulator, like making sure you have your handheld VHF radio, checking for water in the fuel tanks, and how to balance cargo, that you'll never learn in front of a computer screen.
If it's anything like network administration, I'd say something like 20% real experience vs 80% simulated might be a good mix. People who favor just one or the other lack performance under adverse circumstances compared to admins who do both, I've noticed.
I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether a pilot can do simulators only but intuitively, an hour of simulator seems to be worth more than one hour of real life flight.
From TFA:
> Many of Transport Canada’s aviation inspectors, some of whom are licensed pilots, are not able to keep their licences current because Conservative spending cuts imposed in 2011 curtailed their ability to fly government aircraft. He believes the department changed the rules to ensure federal aviation inspectors maintain the proper credentials.
> A CFPA survey of licensed aviation inspectors, conducted in April, found that about half have not been assigned flight training for more than a year and one in 10 has not been assigned to flight training for up to 10 years or more.
> “With the stroke of a pen, Transport Canada has devised a work-around so their own pilots comply with Canadian Aviation Regulations,” Mr. McConnell said. “Aviation inspectors who are pilots are becoming like traffic cops without a driver’s licence. This situation undermines public safety and inspectors’ credibility with the industry they are supposed to oversee.”
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-publications/9-LRA-e....
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/10/04/pilots-licence-simulator-...
I would love it if a developer involved in Transport Canada approved simulator software could comment.
The only difference I can see between a modern simulator and the real thing is lack of consequence.
I am sure it has been done based on a serious look at what is important for our pilots to do.
Yeah, except fly a real plane to maintain that pilot's license.
To take it to the extreme, would you be willing to attempt landing a real 747 solo, having only ever flown using simulators?
Human brains are amazing things that, with no special effort - only practice and repetition - can combine a huge number of disparate inputs to synthesize the "feel" of something.
The airplane is a physical thing and it has "a feel". A good pilot (or jockey or surgeon or fighter or truck driver) has a tremendous amount of stored information and experience related to "the feel" of what they are doing. We would be vastly worse off (and less safe) if we discounted that human ability and fooled ourselves into believing that simulation can ever match the experience of doing a thing in the physical world.
[1] http://jalopnik.com/5629528/how-i-saved-a-747-from-crashing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulator_sickness
No simulator can recreate the forces experienced in a real plane exactly, and it can be very disorienting and nauseating. As a simple example, consider a plane accelerating down the runway for takeoff --- that feeling of thrust that pushes you back into the seat can't be simulated. I have severe motion sickness and can't do things like play FPS, simulators, or watch videos with lots of movement in my field of vision without becoming very dizzy and fatigued. VR and 3D only makes it worse. Yet I have no problems driving or riding in a real plane.